How to be a successful writer in the online age

There are three very simple steps to becoming a successful writer online. (It helps to have a well-shared platform, but it can be done even with a small publication or a blog. You never know what's going to take off.)

If you would like to be a successful writer on the internet, follow these instructions on repeat for the rest of your life:

1) Write things people hate.

2) Don't care that people hate them.

3) Write more things people hate.


So, as simple as these steps are, they need a bit of explanation, a bit of context, a bit of background.

When I started out writing, I wanted to write things people loved. That's how it used to be done. That's how you used to define "successful." Winning prizes for beloved, well-thought-out, important pieces that spread messages and information the public really needed or wanted to hear. Expanding horizons. Educating those who did not have the time or resources to do the research themselves, but wanted to go about their day informed and aware of certain issues.

It's a lofty and great goal.

It fails on the internet.

Of all my pieces, the ones I put the most hours in on--the investigative, the scientific, the health stories that I spent my sweat and tears on--they remain the pieces I am personally most proud of. But they languished in relative obscurity. I'd get a few thousand shares, and maybe 20 supportive comments. End scene.

The only reason I still write them at all is because they remain my personal reason for writing. And don't make the mistake of thinking success on the internet is why many writers write. Not true. It's just a necessary evil to keep yourself relevant as the wheels of internet debate continue to spin.

The pieces that propel an internet writer's career (and help it get into print) are the pieces everyone hates. They're provocative. They spin facts and figures to support an opinion that's controversial. They often exist just to attack something a set group loves illogically. (That group, for me, changes with each piece. Usually I'm pissing off conservatives, but I've made exceptions for Bernie Sanders supporters and liberals in general on occasion. I've pissed off people who like a certain show, people who like a certain brand, people who like boys to be boys and girls to be girls, transphobes, homophobes, classists, racists, and more. The point is, I'm always pissing someone off.)

Those pieces are usually shorter. They don't delve into the particulars of the situation as they should to be legitimate journalism. They ignore certain arguments to concentrate on one probably off-to-the-side point. They make strong assertions that would be seen by supporters as well-conceived, but lack the evidence to back those assertions up (usually not because there is no evidence but because that evidence is not needed to further the end-goal, which is clicks and shares so editors and publications continue to acknowledge you as a force on the internet). They're fun to write, and not difficult to write. They're fairly quick. A dash of oil on a fire already burning.

I wrote a piece about the Gilmore Girls two days ago, for instance, enraging fans everywhere. 11,000 shares so far. I wrote a piece on the Ferguson Riots, enraging conservatives everywhere, 40,000 shares. Meanwhile, my piece on groundbreaking stem cell research garnered 387 shares. My piece on human trafficking within door-to-door magazine sales groups got maybe 1,500 shares.

Write things people hate.

Okay, on to the second step. Rejection, either by editors or readers has never bothered me at all. In order to really excel at this business, you have to not care what people think about you. Remember, you're the one who keeps getting published. There's got to be something to that.

I've been asked how I manage to brush off the hatred, anger and malice tossed my way every single time I'm published, and here's what I've come up with. It can be a combination of any or all of these things for each piece that goes up.

Here is my fool-proof way to not give any fucks about what people think about your writing:

1) Don't care about the topic about which you are writing.
2) Care about what you are writing so much that you automatically assume haters lack reading comprehension or common sense.
3) Think that nothing you do is important, therefore comments from strangers on things you do must be absolutely miniscule.
4) Firmly believe that no one looks at bylines but you, and that a commenter who tells you to kill yourself over a piece about network television is probably the same commenter high-fiving you over a piece you wrote about Target.
5) Be used to people thinking you are worthless, and take pleasure in proving them wrong by being more successful, ambitious, tenacious or awesome than them.

Using these five methods, you should have the mental strength to pump out a piece that's been hate-shared 50,000 times along with comments like FIRE THIS WRITER, or GO PLAY IN TRAFFIC YOU DUMB CUNT, brush it off, and pump out a piece the next day that will anger an entire other population of people.

Do I wish this wasn't the case? Absolutely. I want to write enlightening, well-researched, bullet-proof tomes on important social issues of our times.

But that's not going to cut it. Not on the internet.

Good luck, soldier. We're in this together.

Birthday parties in the modern age

My kids are turning seven next Monday, and to celebrate, I'm throwing them a party at a local bowling alley on Saturday.

Now, when I was a kid, we all still lived close to our extended family, so my network of aunts, uncles and cousins was virtually limitless. Because of that, my mother had extra hands on board, and extra friends of friends and siblings to help undertake this task. And at the very least, SOMEONE would show up to my party because they were related and their mom brought them.

But it never got to that point because when I was growing up, the Internet wasn't a thing. In order for my friends to get together, my parents had to make an effort to get to know their parents, and they did. But it was also easier because everyone was in the same boat. Communities had to get to know each other. They were there for life. Other parents stuck at the tee-ball game would chat to you because they didn't have smart phones and their network of friends far away in the computer. They exchanged phone numbers. We had a post-it note with my friends' number on it in our cabinet for 20 years, no lie. And it wasn't weird to go out and ask for the numbers and then use them.

When my kids were in kindergarten, I went to a parent-teacher conference night and basically attacked other parents for their phone numbers. And I never used but a few of those numbers because the parents and I never had cause to interact again, and honestly, I don't even remember their names. I should add that no one has asked for my number. It's just not something that's done anymore. I've never gotten a call from a parent asking my kids to come over to play--a mainstay of my own childhood.

And so, I find myself here. Just a few days before this party. With three kids coming.

I sent out a mass email to the 53 kids in my kids' classes last year. But no one knows who I am. No one even probably remembers who my kids are. Friendships are...different these days. I don't know anyone's address so I couldn't send cute invitations in the mail. When the bowling alley gave me a stack of invitations, I was like, um. I can't use these. I can't call to confirm or make this in any way personal because I simply do not know any of these people. It's only by luck that the three kids are coming at all, their parents probably happy to have an afternoon off for any reason, and my being a fellow parent at our elementary school official enough for it to be okay.

I want to break out of this for my kids and for their social lives, but I'm not quite sure how to do it. Even when I have in past invited children to play, the parents have stayed at my house, probably because they don't know me because we never have an opportunity to speak. At least not one that we take. I'd probably have been better off introducing myself as "the woman you see walking with twins behind her every school morning" because that's how people actually know me. I'm serious. I'll get stopped on the street, in the gym, even at a restaurant or bar with "are you the woman who walks your twins to school every day?" This is how far we've wandered, people.

I have to send another mass email out today to the parents who didn't respond, meaning, I have to go through and match email responses to email addresses and delete those who responded from the second mailing because I do not know these parents' names. It's all very sad and embarrassing.

Right now, though, we do have six kids coming, which is plenty for me.

This coming school year, I will do my best to promote at least acquaintanceship with other parents. I will try to learn about at least four families and their children. I will reach out, at least a little, and hope against hope that that is reciprocated. My kids deserve better than this online life. Even if it's very hard for me to try.

Backseat parenting at its worst

This video has been going around and it's very popular, having been viewed nearly 10 million times at this point.

It is the private moment of a boy who looks to be about nine years old, totally freaking the fuck out.

His seatbelt is off, he's screaming and kicking, repeating "I don't want to go". Meanwhile, his mother is driving on, as calmly as they can. It sounds, in the video, as if she says at one point that they are going to therapy.

The video itself is a mess, an affront to individual privacy of a family, or more a child (since the passenger in the vehicle recorded it, and then the mother laughs about it being uploaded...which it then was).

On one level, I understand the taking of the video. My kids can freak out like that (although not often, thank God). But I've had them throw themselves off doctor's cots and split their knees open in a clinic setting while screaming their heads off in a tantrum. I've had to cancel Halloween. I certainly am no stranger to getting my back kicked in when my children are at their worst and we're driving somewhere. They are always strapped in, though. I will stop the damn car and yell at them until they buckle those belts back up. But can I judge someone else for not doing that? Maybe she just couldn't anymore. I don't know her life. My kids once OPENED the door as we were driving, and when I locked them again, they unlocked them to attempt to do it again before they used the brains in their heads and freaking stopped that nonsense.

The point is, I consider my kids to be neurotypical if incredibly spirited. I might be wrong. Time will tell, but as far as being able to function on a daily basis, they do just fine. But they can throw a tantrum like the one in this video at the drop of a hat.

Would I want 10 million internet strangers telling me to spank, whup, or crack my kids' asses? Nope. Would I want them talking about what a horrible parent I was and what a merciless brat I'd raised? Nope. Would I want to be the catalyst for 10 million huge jerks to wax poetic about how they were raised...on the end of a wooden spoon? Definitely not.

This mother was not setting herself for a crash course in internet troll parenting, and yet, with the video uploaded and shared, what else could have possibly happened? That is a family at its lowest moment. And so, the child aside, I would beg everyone just sit the fuck down. Not your monkey. Not your circus.

Now let's get to the main point of this post, though, and that is that this child's privacy has been violated for life. What was a 10-minute lapse of judgement on his part (assuming he is neurotypical), or a flare up of a condition over which he has no control, is now an unending stream of video which will follow him when he's 12, 16, 25, 50. That video is forever. And so are the comments ridiculing him, mocking him, and criticizing him. Is that an appropriate punishment for his behavior?

No.

Is that an appropriate punishment for ANY behavior?

No.

So a couple take-home messages here:

To the parents of that child: Never, ever, ever upload videos like that of your children. You never know what is going to go viral. So many times only your closest friends and confidantes take a look, but then there are times like this, when the internet catches on and spreads it around as if it were not your living, breathing child on the screen. As if it were not your parenting choices on display in public. As if you were two-dimensional, fictional creatures. But you are not, and he is not. Think twice.

To the internet commenters: Shut up. You don't know their life. Yes, that belt absolutely should have been strapped. Any other comment you have about beating children or what a brat the child is? Save it. You do not know what is going on there. You don't know what that child or those parents are actually dealing with. You've seen 90 seconds of someone's worst. If you really have to feel superior about that, you are a small, sad person.

To the child: I am so sorry. Most likely this will get buried in the Internet archives and no one will dig it up when you're applying to colleges. Anyway, calming down would be rad, but if you can't or you just didn't that one time, no biggie. All we can do is try again, right? Tomorrow is another day, no matter what the internet says.

Social Media - Guest Post

Today, Cassandra from Smibbo has graciously allowed me to share her interesting take on the social media we all love to hate or hate to love or any variations thereof.


...


Look at this Cartoon .

Social Media. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, G+, Reddit, Livejournal – those are only the ones I’m somewhat familiar with. Those are the generalized ones. There’s many more that are specialized too. Videosift, Youtube, dailymotion, Foursquare, Linkedin…

All virtual meeting-places. Forums, communities, groups, hangouts, guilds elists and PMs. We know what they are and how they’re used. Despite different tools, commands and symbols, they all do basically the same thing: bring people together online to share with each other.

The general consensus is that it is sucking up our socializing. We no longer rely on “real-time” or “face time”. We don’t interact on a daily basis in a “normal” way. Social media is making us all strangers. Social media is stealing our potential quality time. Social media is engulfing us in virtual reality and we are letting life slip by unnoticed. Our children are neglected, our work is sub-standard and our interactions are minimized. We are addicted to unreal relationships.

What did we do before social media?

The general consensus is that we actually made plans to see each other. We had conversations, went out and got to know each other. We looked at each other. We acknowledged one another. We had “real” relationships. Parents paid attention to their kids, SigOths went on dates, and we had hobbies that didn’t require looking at a screen.

Did we really?

All my life I’ve been fascinated with paucity. I read Lois Lenski and the “little house” series. I imagined what life was like without electricity, indoor plumbing or interstate commerce. Reading by candlelight, sitting on a latrine and relying on a garden for dinner…. not things I romanticized or wanted, but fascinated by nonetheless. All my life I’ve been grateful to live when I do; no slavery, women can vote, and modern “conveniences” like light, heat and ready food. There’s many thing I remember “the old fashioned way” – stick shift driving, gas heaters without thermostats, fans instead of air conditioners, ovens that had to be lit.

I remember everyone using cash to pay for things. A check was a huge hold-up at the store and a calculator that you could put in your purse was an amazing thing. Credit cards were for emergencies or rich people. In fact, rich people didn’t use credit cards much either; they had “line of credit” at stores and could simply walk in, pick things out, and have them delivered to their home and billed later.

Being billed later… the doctor, the grocer, the dress shop,… that’s what rich people did. Everyone else did “lay-away” Credit was a luxury.

When you were growing up, what did you think was “luxurious”?

I thought having a house with more than one floor was luxurious. One of my earliest dreams was to own a house with a master staircase. And have a credit card. And two phone lines. And being able to buy a new tire for my car. A NEW tire. That was “luxury” to me.

I remember when answering machines arrived. My parents refused one for a very very long time. My parents are not luddites, but they are logical: “if we buy an item, it will be because we NEED it” was their main philosophy on purchasing things. Because of course, we were very poor. So an answering machine? “Pah! If we’re not here, what’s the point of a machine telling people we’re not here? they can call back later!”

Then “call waiting” happened. It annoyed my mother. But I was a teenager and my penchant for phone conversations that lasted all night forced my parents to rationalize paying for call waiting. They saw the logic in the purchase the same day we got it. But they didn’t buy an answering machine until they became landlords.

I remember car seats for babies. Shoulder seat belts. VCRs.

But what I remember most? What changed everything for my family?

Programmable calculators.

My father bought one as soon as they were available. My father has a degree in physic engineering. Nuff said, right?

My father loved the programmable calculator so much he bought the next version as soon as it came out and gave me his old one. I was eleven. That was my first lesson in programming. Looking back, what I learned would be akin to what’s called a “script” or “macro” today- a short program that tells the computer to do a series of steps it already can do. Instead of having to input every step individually, the script or macro calls up the series of steps with one button. We thought this was amazing. I’d been to IBM on a field trip in school more than once so I knew what a computer was. And here was something very much like a computer, that fit into my backpack. Amazing.

So of course PCs came out. Of course my father got one. Like most early nerds, he bought a kit and built it himself. He learned rapidly. He taught some to me. I knew basic before high school. I fiddled with machine code. I learned to make pictures with ASCII. Fun times.

So what were we doing, socially, back then? Were we really a culture of people going outside all the time, walking around looking at each other, making eye contact and starting up conversations with strangers? Were parents paying rapt attention to their kids in the evenings? Did families go out and do all sorts of “organic” fun? Were we all really acknowledging each other all the time? Were we all full of so much social time that we engaged one another constantly? or even continually? did we use the phone to call each other all the time? did we write letters left and right? Were we a nation of hobbyists and athletes and artists producing and creating and generally making life pleasant without gadgetry?

Well yes, we were.

Did we do it so much more than we do now?

Well no, not really.

We didn’t stop doing any of those things. We haven’t retreated into a silent world of screen-gazing and info-sharing while neglecting the real flesh and blood of relationships any more than we used to sit every night around a campfire and sing kum-bah-ya with locked arms and loving glances.

What we did was trade. In some cases, we traded one type of communication that was cumbersome and time-consuming for much more efficient version of the same.

Do people sit down and write letters that they will later mail at the post office later? Some. Mostly, people write emails. It’s an exchange that actually broadened the scope of communication and made interaction more commonplace. Because “snail mail” letter-writing required a significant investment of time, money and mental energy, it wasn’t something everyone did. When a person did choose to write a letter, it was an endeavor which could take up much of their resources and as such meant the letter had to justify said effort. Of course, some people didn’t write their own letters to begin with. Many people would hire someone else more skilled to write on their behalf. Because of this, letter-writing was considered something of a talent; one could actually gain a reputation as a “good letter-writer”. Sending someone your thoughts, ideas and questions wasn’t something to be done lightly. So many people didn’t do it at all. Think of all those thoughts, ideas and questions that never got put out. All that information, clarification and interaction that never happened.

Email erased that and gave the power to exchange to everyone almost equally.

I hear the lamentation that grammar and spelling have gone out the window with the advent of social media and the internet. Some think its because the internet has made people stop caring, taking pride in their expression. I think the internet, for all its egalitarian beauty, merely opened the floodgates for those who are not talented or skilled in letter-writing to attempt to interact anyway. No longer is letter-writing an intimidating prospect that could eat up considerable time and energy. Now anyone can do it, so long as the “rules” for exchange have softened.

Do people sit and have conversations via phone or gathering like they used to? Of course they do. But social media has changed that landscape too. No longer does one have to be subject to the influence of whoever happens to be in their vicinity; with social media, one can choose to interact with whatever type and strata of person they like at any time. Barely speak English? Know nothing about current events? Only interested in discussing llama farming? Find your group online and start talking! now! Introduce yourself – ah remember that? “introduce yourself” used to be one of the most dreaded phrases in social gatherings. Standing in front of a crowd of strangers, you had to on-the-spot come up pertinent information about yourself that would entice people to want to know you, accept you and validate you.

Strangers you say? Bah! Why waste time with strangers when you could find an online “gathering” of people you share things in common with. Take as long as you need to write your introduction. Read other people’s posts so you can get a feel for how this group functions and whether you are “on their level” or not. If you realize you’re out of your depth, or sailing above everyone else, you can leave quietly and no one will even remember or care that you stopped by. It’s all in your hands. And if you want, at any time the “real world” is still out there, waiting for you to go join it. But now when you do, you can set your stage beforehand using social media. Much of the dreadful, terrifying unknown has been swept away from socializing now. No more standing around with total strangers wondering how to break the ice, present yourself and find out who everyone is. When you get to your meet-up you come armed with important knowledge that allows you to bypass hours of awkward fumbling and guessing.

So what is all this really building to? What are we getting from social media that isn’t being talked about?

Social media gives us one thing we have never had so much of before in our long history of socializing: the power of independent choice.

Social media is so seductive, attractive and wonderful because while it fulfils our need to be social, it also allows us to control everything about our socializing. Even the power to retreat, if we want to. Often with very little repercussions.

Think back… when you first started getting online, what did you do? When you first started dipping into social media (in my case it was IRC) did you make “mistakes”? How long did it take you to figure out “how this thing works”? Once you figured one social media out -the rules, the rituals, the expectations and of course the tools, how hard was it to move on to another type of social media and figure it out?

Social media doesn’t define our culture. It doesn’t supplant “normal” socializing. It hasn’t killed “facetime” nor has it erased the need for relationships. It has expanded our reach, broadened our capacity for inclusion and lowered the price of interaction for everyone equally. It has also allowed us to reimagine ourselves as social creatures. The person I am when I play an online game is not quite the same person I am when I discuss current events on a forum. the person I am on my public blog is not the same person I am on my friends-only blog, my facebook, my twitter, my emails… who I am is what I want to be, who I think I need to be for each unique online situation.

I have recently learned something new as well: I am not required to stay the same on any social media. I have grown all my life and social media is no different. My growth has included many lessons about myself, people I know and the world around me. But some of my favorite lessons have been about social media itself and how its changed my expectations and my interactions. I realized recently that I do not have to feel beholden to anyone for an explanation unless I am on a neutral-ownership place. If it is MY facebook, MY blog or MY twitter, I owe no one anything in explanation or expectation. But when I am on a forum, an email list, or any other group, I am no more important or less than any one else in that same group. I have never felt more equality than when in online discussions. Despite the fact that there are still bigots, assholes and patronizing jerks, the general tenor of online groups are egalitarian. We are all anonymous to some degree and yet we all have reputations as well. We gather personality traits over time like any other form of socializing. Yet because of the differences in online interactions and “real life” interaction, those traits are seen more as individual traits than indicators of whatever classifications of humanity I belong to. I may have a reputation for being quick-tempered and mouthy but I am not taken to be the token spokesperson for all white, disabled, female bisexuals. My traits are indicative of ME. Unlike many “real time” interactions wherein any type of noticeable reactive traits can easily be considered hallmarks of “your kind” The anonymity of the online world is good like that.

Lastly, I want to touch upon the intricate nature of social media’s place in parenting. Obviously, I am a big fan of parenting forums as my recent post about Special Needs Parenting forums clearly showed. But overall, social media has given parents a gift that has no ‘real life” component: individualized networking.

Before social media, parents had magazines and some books. If you wanted to meet other parents, the best you could do was to join the PTA or church group. If you did, you had to hope there were other parents who had similiar parenting philosophies but more importantly, you had to hope that your philosophies were NOT the type to get you branded as “one of THOSE parents” by the majority of wherever you were. Because if you went to your local school and mentioned an unpopular parenting idea… you were stuck for the next 12 years. You could be outcast, ostracized, gossip-fodder possibly even harassed through CPS if you said the “wrong” thing. So parents have gained solidarity in social media but they have also gained something more valuable: understanding and acceptance. Which goes both ways. Nowadays, even if you live in backwater USA and your entire PTA goes to church every day of the week, think Jesus rode dinosaurs and women must wear hats everywhere they go, even then, you still have heard of other parenting philosophies. You may not like them, you may think they are weird, but , you’ve heard of them and you know, whether grudgingly or happily, that you must have some level of tolerance.

And that first tiny foot-in-the-door of tolerance? Is better than humanity has had for the last thousand or so years.

Because of social media.

So yes, go out occasionally. Talk to people sometimes. Smile at strangers. Enjoy “real life” interaction. Its just as wonderful as its always been. But I suspect people haven’t stopped doing those things or craving them.

People just need to be reminded once in a while that social media enhances interaction, even as it doesn’t replace it. They live side-by-side, supporting each other. Use them both wisely.








 

Before You Laugh, T.H.I.N.K. - Guest Post

Tracey, who blogs over at Inside the Mommyvan, really brings up some good points about pictures and pages we usually don't think twice about laughing at.

...



I've noticed lately certain things that once seemed like a great idea now make me squirm inside my own skin... and no, I don't mean unearthing photos of that ill-advised spiral perm I got in 1983. I'm talking about some of the humor out there that, for me, crosses a line. Not racist, or sexist, or any of the many other -ist lines whose specific boundazries are argued daily both on- and off-line. No, this is subtler still, and yet something that affects us all. So, here goes...

People of Walmart.

"A photo collection of people that grace us with their presence at Walmart." Hope you never have a bad hair day, or a child care or health or wardrobe emergency, or, God forbid, a mental illness or disability, and then need to run an errand. You might just find yourself on the wrong end of a camera lens at Wal-Mart.

 Rich Kids of Instagram.

"They have more money than you and this is what they do." You probably have more money than lots of other people. Do you have a nicer car? A bigger TV? Better clothes? Take a vacation now and then? Or do you, unlike these foolish children, spend money _only_ on the necessities of life?

 Awkward Family Photos. "Awkward Family Photos reminds anyone with a dusty shoebox full of snapshots of unfortunate fashion choices, band trips, braces, bad bridesmaids’ dresses and that one time you got talked into dressing up and going to the Renaissance Faire, that you are not alone. This isn’t just a book, it’s a public service on the page, a living, breathing, laugh-out-loud reminder that no matter how badly you dressed, how oddly you posed, and how weird Uncle Dave who lived in the basement was, somebody out there had it worse." (from the book description)

Public service? I don't buy it. Admit it, it's an excuse to laugh at people funnier-looking than you are, people who made the mistake of capturing what was to them a treasured memory, on film. I've focused on these websites because they're ones I see often, floating around Facebook and the like, but there are plenty of off-line examplesas well:

• That lady (really shouldn't be) wearing a bikini top / thise shorts / that dress in public.
• Can you believe those people dragging their grubby kids around the store at 11pm?
• Look at that jerk with the fancy car, he must be compensating for something (wink, wink).
• Who would ever think that pose / belly cast / framed placenta would make a nice pregnancy keepsake?

It is a fine line, though, isn't it? Let's try a few more.

• Look at that girl, her clothes don't even match. Doesn't she own a mirror?
• Hey, lady, get that whiny rugrat out of the coffeeshop (all he did was ask for a chocolate milk).
• Ooooh, pink hair, bet you think you're sooo unique.
• What a dork, he can't even catch a football.
• Did she really think she had a shot at cheerleading (with those thunder thighs or she's flat as a board)?

Can you see where this is going? I hope so, because I'm not going to spell out the next step. Don't get me wrong, I love to laugh as much as the next person, and some of these are funny. Some of them are also offensive hurtful, and unkind. This is where the line comes in. Once we get past the blatantly insulting, what we say isn't what crosses the line. It's not even who we say it to or where. It's how, and more importantly, why that pushes it over from good fun into... something else.

The line is in my heart.

Am I laughing at someone who has offered up their own awkwardness or misfortune as humor (as with at least some of the Awkward Family Photos, the best comedians, and good ol' America's Funniest Videos), or at someone held up by a third party as laughable? Am I laughing out of sympathy and camaraderie, or out of malice, jealousy, arrogance, or spite?

The line is in my heart.

We all think things from time to time that are better left unspoken. Bullying is a terrible problem among teens and even young children. Even adults can be terribly cruel to each other, perhaps without even being aware of it.

At the same time, I don't want us to turn into a society of humorless drones, never poking friendly fun lest we bruise someone's ego. I think most people can figure out, in their own heart, which side of the line their words are coming from. The line is in your heart, too. If you find yourself about to say something like, "Lighten up!" or "Can't you take a joke?" you probably crossed the line. The right move here is to apologize. Immediately. No ifs, ands, or buts (especially not buts). Think back to what you said, and why, and make a mental note: That was Not OK. If it's a one-off thing, maybe it was a misunderstanding or someone especially sensitive. If you start to see a pattern, take another look at the line, the one in your heart, and give it a nudge toward the kinder, gentler side. Isn't this what we want to teach our kids? Regardless of how you tell them to treat others, they will follow the behavior your model for them. If you tease, pick on, or bully, they will too.

So, before you speak, THINK: T - Is it true? H - Is it helpful? I - Is it inspiring? N - Is it necessary? K - Is it kind?



 

Bully for You - A Critique of Feminism, Part II

In a movement where the main thrust is equality, you wouldn't think that bullying would be a problem. But it is. As feminism fights the dominant ideology, those within the movement sometimes forget to put down their dukes when they turn around and face each other.

This isn't new. Jo Freeman wrote about it in great detail for Ms. Magazine all the way back in 1976. She calls it "trashing."

"Trashing is a particularly vicious form of character assassination which amounts to psychological rape. It is manipulative, dishonest, and excessive. It is occasionally disguised as rhetoric of honest conflict, or covered up by denying that any disapproval exists at all. But it is not done to expose disagreements or resolve differences. It is done to disparage and destroy."

But this is not as straightforward as it sounds.

Both sides of the conflict surrounding the Equality for Women Page run by Charles Clymer, for instance, feel as if they are being "trashed." Neither feel as if they are "trashing."

What's clear, though, inside this vacuum and outside of it (I can't tell you how many times I've been told I'm a detriment to the feminist cause because I'm a housewife / stay at home mom. And I witnessed a friend of mine get dressed down because she dared get married. Which apparently oppresses women. Except she's one of the most vehement feminists I know.) is that feminism is confused. What constitutes an attack, and what constitutes defense? Is retribution ever okay? Can we move forward if we're busy sticking our swords into each other? And more importantly, why are we doing this?

Jill Filipovic argues that we do it because feminists are fighting for crumbs on the larger stage. That the movement itself is so confined and so marginalized that we compete with each other to get our one true version of feminism out there.

She rightly says:

"It's time we learned lessons that are now decades old, and have been faced by many other political movements. Feminism must be more genuinely egalitarian and representative. We need to understand that womanhood means very different things to the billions of different women on this planet. We must work against perpetuating the same inequalities we fight against.

And we need to do that not in competition with each other, but with the shared goal of improving the movement and world. We need to do it with the recognition that no perspective or solution will be universal, and no single woman will be anywhere near a perfect feminist."

The question is, how?

How do we take a movement that is so personal in its very definition and make it a coherent front? How do we take what we need from a solid movement pushing for equal rights while also championing individual choice (one of those rights)? We're at a crossroads, and no one quite knows which way to turn.

In my research, I've seen two large issues. 1) No one knows which battles are important and which are frivolous. 2) In choosing which of those battles to fight, most individual players end up fighting each other to defend their choices as opposed to fighting the establishment currently oppressing them. As an outcropping of these issues, people get personal, people get mean, and people get scared. And suddenly feminism goes from a lofty goal toward which we are all working to a he-said, she-said, smear campaign full of internet drama and unimportant fluff. The egos, as it were, inflate, until any outsiders looking at the points that were trying to be made have to put the stuff down for fear of losing their eyes in the back of their heads. Let me provide for you an example.

When I was researching my original piece on men as feminist leaders and whether or not the policy of banning people and deleting their comments off a personal page meant to forward the feminist movement was censorship, I came across many pitchforks, many witch hunts, and many vendettas.

Everyone, it seemed, had something to say.

I had no fewer than half a dozen women, and maybe closer to a dozen, try to tell me that Charles Clymer was a sexual predator.

Spoiler alert: He's not. Let me say that again so you don't miss it. I have researched and interviewed this man and those close to him for months now. He is not a sexual predator.

What's interesting about this is when I told the women that I would not be labeling him as such, they were outraged. What about the overwhelming evidence, they asked. What about such and such screenshot. These feminists threw everything they could at me to attack Clymer. The truth was there were two women who had actual screen shots of conversations that were completely consensual and in which these women were enthusiastic participants. The other complaints were either fabricated, hearsay or blind anger. They were looking for a vehicle to effectively express their rage.

Charles says, "Making these unfounded accusations gave them a way to get back at me for banning them, after I called them out for not upholding feminist ideals in which they purportedly believed."

They were really mad. And I get that. He silenced them, many times for no discernible reason. (Clymer and I disagree about what constitutes an abusive comment. He knows this.)

But in their personal anger, they gave me screen shots lacking in context. Some 'forgot' to mention that it was consensual at the time, and, honestly, none of the stuff said, when put into the big picture, was harassment.

"These people, they're like a cult in a way," says Clymer. "They've kind of banded together and gone to any post I make or any time I'm mentioned, and they'll shove comments into the comments section. This isn't just me ranting about being bullied with something I did wrong. This is about my reputation being destroyed by accusations for which they refuse to provide proof. It's completely unfair that my banning them for saying things I didn't believe were feminist has resulted in a deliberate campaign to accuse me of sexual harassment. I will readily apologize for things that I've done wrong, but I will not apologize for things I didn't do."

I asked them to come forward with their name, but despite all the vitriol they had for this man, very few of them were willing to step forward to say they'd been involved in any way with him. As the skeletons fell out, and those on all sides realized they weren't, perhaps as virtuous or innocent as they had thought they were, many calling for a public thrashing suddenly pulled back. "Don't use my name, I take back what I said, I didn't realize you were going to use this part of the story." These were just some of the statements I heard.

Many claimed fear of bullying for their cold feet, which brings us back to the original point. They were sure Clymer would come after them with all of his followers frothing at the mouth, trying to defame and ruin them.

A legitimate concern, since Clymer has been known to make statements on EFW denouncing those who go against him in the heat of the moment.

But, on the other hand, isn't throwing stones from the shadows (and hefty ones at that: harassment? Embezzlement?) then scurrying away bullying? Isn't planting seeds of doubt without context and trying to unravel someone's work because you're mad at them and pretending it's about real issues bullying?

Charles Clymer did not embezzle donation funds, and he did not prey on women.

He did ask for donations, which does rankle some people, and he did flirt with some of the women. End.

The problem with Clymer is the same problem a lot of feminists have and the same problem a lot of internet users have: he's sensitive. Very sensitive. Too sensitive, in my opinion.

Let's address some micro issues in point form for those interested. For those not interested, take this information and apply it to specific scenarios in your own feminist circles; I bet you can find some that fit.

In March, EFW shut down operation. Clymer says his mod team banned more than 100 people, his mod teams says it was him. I can't find out for sure. No one has the records. So who banned and silenced those people?

The mod team disbanded, many upset at Clymer's leadership and ego at the time. Rightfully so. Some left with wounded pride. This team, which at first stood up for Clymer, and participated in shutting members with disagreements down, turned with vengeance on him because during discussions he'd played divide-and-conquer--and so would they. You see? It's all a bunch of inane miscommunication, manipulation and silliness. After their ire was mostly spent, and after they realized I wasn't going to come out and libel him, they backed off. Some have rejoined him, at least in private. Some now respectfully keep their distance. Almost none of them are willing to come forward with their previous complaints.

Former moderator Zoe Katherine now labels the ordeal as a "huge mistake" and says many involved are "sorry for the hurt they caused."

"I believe a lot of people genuinely thought they were speaking the truth at the time, so I am not willing to state that I or anyone else lied. I think that those who agree with me will say they no longer believe what they said to be true. They made a huge mistake and are sorry for the hurt it caused. It was not my intention to smear Charles or tarnish his reputation. I believed I was doing the right thing, and everything I said was in the public interest. I now accept that I maybe didn't think it through, but no one was thinking rationally. It was like a mass hysteria. I never deliberately lied. I never said anything I did not believe to be true at the time."

Now, this isn't to say it's all puppies and roses. There were two groups started after commenters got banned. EFW Blacklisted was headed by Eric Holodnak after he was banned by Clymer. Holodnak says he participated in the "I need feminism because..." picture series and his photo became popular. Clymer messaged him about it, and asked for advice about the page. After giving advice, Holodnak found himself banned. Clymer says the message about the picture was a pretext. He was actually putting out feelers to see if Holodnak was acting in an inappropriate manner with some of his mod team. Even though the mods, Clymer and Holodnak all agree that nothing overtly untoward went on, Holodnak was still banned. Someone on Team Holodnak was supposedly fired from their real-life job, though the name was not provided. EFW and EFW Blacklisted went back and forth trading insults, digging up personal information and posting it, and etc. Until they finally decided on a truce. EFW took down the posts and EFW Blacklisted dissolved.

I received this story from Holodnak on the record who later told me to disregard it, citing fear of Clymer backlash. I received this story from one of the mods on the record who later told me to disregard it. She feared retaliation from Clymer and from Holodnak. I received this story from Clymer who told me to use it. Are you starting to understand? I just do not have time for this. Either tell me or don't.

This is where bullying plays a large role in feminism. All this he-said-she-said, back-and-forth, and the point of the movement gets lost as former feminists wade around the murky waters of their own egos and trivial bickering. This happens on the internet, on the street and in academia too.

There was another group against Clymer, "People Banned by Charles Clymer (and their close friends)." It was started by Kathleen Ellis after a comment she left on EFW got her banned.

One of the mods posted about going out in a sexy dress, getting drunk, and still not being raped or harassed. Kathleen commented that perhaps she should be careful even so.

"I was attacked by Clymer and others," says Ellis, "accused of victim blaming and slut shaming. I proceeded to post that I believed any person should be aware and alert in their surroundings, and that suggesting that a person be aware of their own personal safety was not equal to victim blaming. I never inferred that anyone who acted as stated above 'deserved it' or any such thing. I never would."

It's a muddy bank there. Where does caution end and victim blaming begin? It's something a feminist page would perhaps do well to discuss. Still, with Clymer's delete-and-ban policy, she was gone. And not without private words between the two, during which they both became very heated.

Fans of Equality for Women ended up getting Ellis' group shut down as a hate group, which according to my research, it was not.

Even now, months later, tempers on both sides flare over this group and the banning policy. While some of the criticism is legitimate (from both ends), a lot of it is boring, ego-stroking mania. So many times I wanted to throw up my hands and say, "but, guys, really, who cares?"

I wrote about it not because of the specifics, but because of what they say about the greater picture. The bullies, the wounded, the sensitive, the blowhardy, the movement itself, they all get wound up in these very personal dumpings that are totally beside the point. And it's happening everywhere.

In the end, you've got a whole handful of no-one-cares, and two people supposedly on opposite sides of a battle calling for the same thing.

Clymer says:

"When people see feminists trying to tear each other down, or fight in public, that makes feminism look like shit. It makes it look like we are fighting for crumbs. And that’s not true. They’re trying to be honest, to be genuine, but what happens is they perpetuate the stereotypes and that’s not good."

And Kathleen says:

"My advice to those looking to forward the feminist cause is to step back and take a look and realize that we are all sisters and brothers. Although we may see things a little differently due to our personal background, ethics, age, etc., we do have a common goal. There is no 'one way' to accomplish equality for all. We need to stop being so quick to label people and instead listen to what others have to say. We don't all have to agree with each other. Feminism is not only a movement, it is a lifestyle. Do not accept abuse ever, but be careful to avoid falling into mob mentality and becoming an abuser yourself."

Good advice, both of you.

Just saying.

 

The End of the Spammers?

I've posted before about the hilarious spam messages I receive on this blog.

Gems like:

"I think this is one of the such a lot important information for me.
And i'm satisfied reading your article. However wanna remark on few general things, The website taste is great, the articles is in reality great : D. Just right job, cheers
My web page: how to get rid of acne scars "

"That is really attention-grabbing, You are a very 
skilled blogger. I've joined your feed and sit up for seeking more of your excellent post. Additionally, I have shared your web site in my social networks
Also visit my web page ... how to get your Ex back "

and

"Somebody essentially lend a hand to make seriously articles I 
would state. This is the first time I frequented your web 
page and thus far? I surprised with the research you made to create this actual put up amazing.

Excellent activity!
My webpage ; buy youtube views"

keep coming.

I laugh.

Now, I had been allowing these spam comments for two reasons.

1) Captcha is annoying.

2) Some of these commenters are real people making, like, three pennies per comment or something. And who am I to deny them their income? They're only looking ridiculous on older posts anyway.

But then I got a comment that said something along the lines of this:

"Blah blah ridiculous, nonsensical blather. Does your site have a spam problem? View my webpage."

And I was like, well, it didn't until you drew it to my attention. Now, I'm thinking, jeez, if the spammers are asking if I've got a spam problem, it's probably time to bite the bullet and rid myself of these leeches.

(No offense, leeches.)

Even without that snarky spam comment, the number of links left on old blog entries is getting up to a half dozen a day.

This is everyone's problem. Moderation, yo. When you descend upon something so surely and with no reprieve, you're going to be stopped where otherwise, had you exercised just a little judgement, held back just a tad, you'd be left alone to attempt to entice people with your stupid links.

Unfortunately for you, I'll now be taking care of my "spam problem."

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, bots.

But before I do, here are a few more gems for you all:

"When someone writes an article he/she retains the image of a user in his/her brain that how a user can be 
aware of it. Therefore that's why this article is perfect. Thanks!
Here is my web-site :: buy Youtube views " 

(This one is extra good because it's on a post about shepherd's pie. Hah.)

"What's up, every time i used to check weblog posts here early in the daylight, for the reason that i like to gain knowledge of more and more.
my web site :: clean my pc "

Okay, I have to stop copy and pasting these before I change my mind about strengthening my security.

They're so hilarious; I really quite like them.


 

What's Your (New) Sign?

I've never put any stock into horoscopes and star signs.  Born in the early 1980s, I always figured myself beyond all that New Age mumbo jumbo, if that's even what it is.  Until, of course, the internet's hysteria over possible sign changes hit me.

I was fairly distraught.  Am I actually a Gemini?  That doesn't make any sense.  I'm moody, I'm loyal, I'm mothering...all 'signs' point to Cancer.  I don't want to be a Gemini.  And I wasn't alone.  Hundreds of people I know railed in opposition to this new finding.  No one wanted a new sign, and no one wanted to be the new one, Ophiuchus.  Isn't that a transformer, anyway? Ophiuchus Prime?

It turns out, regardless of what kind of lip service people pay the Zodiac, we are somewhat attached to our sign.  Even if we say that we define ourselves, it is apparently too easy to use a few adjectives here and there given to us from above.  It becomes a part of us, regardless of how well it fits.  We take what we like and leave the rest, and do what we can to make the definition of our sign fit us.  We may say it's unimportant, but does anyone not know what their sign is?

If you are wondering and haven't seen this yet, here are the "new" signs.

Capricorn: Jan. 20-Feb. 16
Aquarius: Feb. 16-March 11
Pisces: March 11-April 18
Aries: April 18-May 13
Taurus: May 13-June 21
Gemini: June 21-July 20
Cancer: July 20-Aug. 10
Leo: Aug. 10-Sept. 16
Virgo: Sept. 16-Oct. 30
Libra: Oct. 30-Nov. 23
Scorpio: Nov. 23-Nov. 29
Ophiuchus: Nov. 29-Dec. 17
Sagittarius: Dec. 17-Jan. 20

But don't panic.  As is more and more frequently the case, a slow news day combined with lightning-fast social media held to no accountability and bored internet-goers, means that an article originally reported by NBC on a debate that's been raging for years now (nothing new about it) from the viewpoint of one (that's right, one) astrologer, has been lended the legitimacy of the news media as more and more outlets and aggrigators pick up the story, eventually leaving the NBC reference in the dust, and forgetting the name (and number) of the astrologer whose theory this was originally about.  So to the average viewer, it looks as if this week we collectively decided to change everybody's star sign.

Not true.  Will we someday have to change our sign, and, therefore, our definition of the traits we have spent years honing?  Maybe.  But that day really needn't be today.

Still, either way, I'm pleased to announce that my babies will be Leos with or without the new sign.

Legend of Ophiuchus The Serpent Holder

Original NBC article: http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=13828331


___

Don't forget to please vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother if you are enjoying this blog; we're number 14!

Parenting Online - Part 2

While there are dozens of articles and resources you can google on the internet to find out more information on any parenting topic you're interested in - or be validated in any decision you've made - sometimes, you come across a specific situation where anecdotes and stories of others who have already gone through it will help you.  Reading walls of clinical texts can be boring and time consuming, so many parents prefer to go right to the source and ask their questions to other parents.

There are many interactive sites catering to this need, in the form of forums often called communities.  You can find a community for any specific label you apply to yourself, be it stay at home mom, working mom, young mom, older mom, potty-training mom, mom of toddlers, mom of twins and many more.  No matter who you are, there are several groups with dozens of members just like you out there to help.

Or to hurt.

As the name indicates, communities are exactly that.  They have rules and regulations.  They have hierarchies and popularity.  They have helpful people and people who are there to snark.  They have running jokes and taboo topics.  If you thought you left high school behind, let me introduce you to mommy communities on the internet.

If you are going to use them, here are some things I've learned that may give you a flame-free experience, although nothing on the internet is 100 percent snark proof.

1)  Lurk first.  Pick a community and watch it.  You'll get a feel for the types of questions people ask there, and how they ask them.  How you ask a question is almost as important as what you're asking because people often get tied up in semantics and forget to answer your question.  Or they read a bigger debate into your particular situation and go off on that debate as a whole.  Something like this can hijack your entire thread and prevent you from getting the specific stories you were looking for.

By lurking, you will also be able to assess the relationship different members have with each other.  Many people stay with communities for years and know a lot more about each other than you would assume at first glance.  Friendships start up, battle lines are drawn, and memories carry.  So that someone may ask an innocent question and be flamed for something they posted months ago, as other members remember that they previously disagreed.  It's not always this way, but many new members of parenting communities find themselves turned off or intimidated when it is.  Don't be.  They're all just parents like the rest of us, and even if 80 of them decide to tell you you're doing it wrong, that doesn't mean it's true.

2) Ask in the right place.  A debate community is not the place for an advice question, and a question community is not the place for a cute story. Consider your audience.  If you're formula feeding, for instance, a breastfeeding community will not help you. 

The answers, stories and judgement you'll receive from the internet depends on where you post your question.  For instance, I posted in a general question forum about the reaction of people to a toddler's public tantrum.  The answers there were exactly what I expected.  They told me I needed to be a better parent and discipline my child more effectively.  Had I asked in the parenting community I frequent,  people would have commiserated with me.  I would have been told similar stories and advised to keep on keeping on.  Parents understand that babies cry and toddlers tantrum, other people might not.

3) Don't be discouraged; there will always be people out there who think they are better than you.  No matter which community you post to, if you're asking a sensitive question, people are going to have mixed opinions, and some will not mince words in telling you about them.  Whether or not you respond to these comments is up to you, but, remember - even if someone is personally attacking you - don't take it to heart.  They don't know you, they don't know your story, and they'll never understand the choices you're making or the reasons behind those choices.  A personal attack is only as personal as you allow it to become.

4) Only take what's helpful to you.  Remember these people are not experts, they're just other parents who have read other things who feel differently.  They may have had similar experiences that may be helpful to you.  They may have had similar experiences that help you in no way whatsoever.  If you don't cosleep and they tell you the only thing that worked for them is cosleeping, then that's great for them.  Their comment may be useful to someone else reading your post.  That doesn't mean you have to take it into consideration if you've already decided against it.  On the other hand, if you were looking for the benefits of cosleeping to help you make that decision, their story may very well help you a lot.

5) Don't post a follow up.  Many of these sites will have a profile page for you.  If people are curious as to how your situation played out, they will look there.  A follow up is usually forgiven if new problems shoot up, and you think more advice could help you.  The key here is that communities are about the topics at hand; they are not about you.

Parenting communities are the internet's answer to the old adage "it takes a village to raise a child."  Not everyone in that village is going to approve of the choices you make, or even like you, but in the end, they aren't the ones raising your child.  You are.

____
Don't forget to vote for Tales of an Unlikely Mother if you like it!

Overcoming Inertia

Get up.  I'm serious, get up right now.  Or, maybe after you finish reading this blog, but certainly after you check your email - wait, what's the New York Times' top story today?  And didn't you want to check that diaper post on that forum?  Plus, there's facebook to update.

The internet is fantastic; it puts the world at your fingertips.  The internet is awful; you never have to move again.  An object at rest stays at rest.  We must strive to overcome this inertia.

As I type this, my babies are playing in the living room.  I could be playing with them.  I could be making breakfast.  I am at my computer.  Through experience, though, I know the pitfalls, and I will not stay here to check my email, or read the paper, or check a forum.  If I spend too long at my computer, I turn to sludge.  I can feel it - my life force seeping out of me and into this chair I'm sitting on.

We must get up.  We must do things.  I, for one, know I feel better if I do.  But knowing I feel better, and having the strength to actually move from this desk are two different things.

You would think toddlers make this easier.  They are always on the move, it seems.  Even a movie on television cannot stop them for long.  Unfortunately, I've found, they don't make moving easier: in fact, they make it harder.

If your kids are in a bad mood, you don't want to take them out.  What if it gets worse?  What if they embarrass you in public?  A change of scenery may help, but if they're cranky, they won't calm down long enough for you to even explain to them that you're going somewhere.  May as well just leave them be to get over this spell of animosity.

If your kids are in a good mood, you don't want to take them out.  The change of scenery might set them off.  Right here, right now, there is such a good balance.  They're happy and chipper; why would you take a chance and end this rare bout of contentedness?

It just seems easier to stay.  And it might be, in the short term.  But if you could only overcome this inertia and try to get them out of the house, if only for a walk to the trash cans, you'd be amazed at the difference in the day.  It's actually less effort to handle toddlers if you give them a few different experiences to mull over in their quiet time.  Toddlers cooped up inside, playing by themselves, eventually (and sometimes immediately) turn sour.  Then, the energy you could have been spending on an outing, you now are forced to spend appeasing them, stopping tantrums.  Everybody loses.

Of course, getting up is not as easy as I've made it sound.  Sometimes, it just feels impossible, especially if you are ill, or pregnant, or alone, or sad.  But it can be done.  On the bad days, if you can even fake overcoming your apathy for a few minutes, it will be easier to fake the next day, and the third.  By the fourth day, it will be part of your routine.

I try to schedule at least one outing with the twins a day.  And it is hard.  We don't always make my goal.  Some days, I need to just stay home and sludge through the day until I can toss the babies and myself into bed.  But I've noticed that we all feel better if we do at least one thing, have at least one adventure together.  Even though it feels like far too much work for far too little gain each morning as I sip my coffee and they watch Dora.

You don't have to be a superstar.  If you don't get the kids out and about, you didn't fail.  There's always tomorrow, after all.  Each day a new chance, and each day more love from your children, as difficult as they may be.  Start slowly.  Read them a book in the living room.  Tomorrow, maybe, take them out to play in the back yard.  If you're feeling up to it, try a short walk.  If not, you didn't fail.  Read them another book.  It won't take long.  Just a few minutes of interaction, and you may find yourself feeling better.  Just a few minutes of interaction, and your kids may be good to play on their own for another hour or so. 

It's not easy, and if you spend your days at the computer, you are far from alone.  It doesn't make you a bad parent.  It makes you a tired parent.  It makes you a normal parent.

Still, maybe you could try it, today.  Maybe right now, you could get up.

Parenting Online - Part 1

As a first-time parent, I did a lot of research online.  I looked at Kelly Mom, at Dr. Sears, at the World Health Organization.  I joined parenting groups and forums, baby groups and pages.  We have the internet's boundless knowledge, facts and experience at our fingertips, we may as well use it, right?

In my years of hardlined internet research, I learned one core fact I think every parent should take into consideration: you can find an expert to back up any belief you have.

It's true.  No matter how you choose to raise your child, you can find someone on the internet to tell you that you are doing it right.  For every one person you find to tell you that, there will be 20 more to tell you that you are doing it wrong.
 
My solution?

You need to do what feels right for you and for your child.  You cannot go by the book in parenting because there simply is no book.  Or, rather, there are 80 billion books.  As new parents, we often don't have the confidence to rely on ourselves, on our gut feeling, but with all this conflicting information, it's really all we have.

Here are a few examples of what I am talking about:

1) You are unsure if you should babywear.  Babywearing.com has an effusive writeup on the benefits of babywearing, many parents in your chosen internet forum advocate it, but, then again, there was that recall a while back.

People have been wearing babies for centuries.  If you choose to do so, you are following in their footsteps, and they've created millions of people, so I'm sure you'll be fine.  Alternately, people have been putting their babies down for centuries, and those babies turned out okay, too.

I never babywore.  I had twins.  Problem solved.  I didn't even have to look into this one.  (Although, I'm sure there are many advocates who would tell me I should have worn them both.  Perhaps saddlebag style?)

2) Breastfeeding or formula feeding.  Most news stories, experts and websites you'll see agree that breast is best, but your mother in law, your aunt, and the hospital in which you gave birth are pushing formula. 

Again, babies have been fed both ways for many, many years.  Those babies made it, and so will yours.

I breastfed for three months.  My babies never latched and needed to take my milk from a bottle.  I fought tooth and nail to continue, but the babies were less than 10 pounds at that three month mark, my breasts were making less milk, and I had to go back to work.  I switched to formula.  I'm here to tell you, I am still a good person, and my babies are thriving two year olds.  It's okay, and it's nobody's business how you feed your child.  Do what's best for you.

3) Cosleeping.  You can find multiple articles for and against cosleeping.  Some physicians say it's dangerous and leads to SIDS or other problems.  Others say that theory is rubbish, that cosleeping is good for baby and parents, that it strengthens bonds and leads to a better night's sleep for all involved.  You need to do what's right for you.

We never coslept.  My kids made it.

4)  Crying it out.  Babywise says do it.  Everyone else says don't.  Again, I stick to my adage of doing what's right for you.  In this particular instance, though, I must let my bias show, as I cannot imagine how letting a small baby cry for any long amount of time is good for anyone involved.  But I'm no expert.  That's what Google is there for.

And these are just a few.  There are so many questions that need to be answered.  And once you make a decision, there are several important follow ups.  So that if you decide that a pacifier is right for your family, you then have to research what type of pacifier, and when you're supposed to wean baby from that pacifier, and when you can and can't use that pacifier, and how often, and for what amount of time.

With all of this ready-made knowledge, we're essentially taking the intuition out of parenting.  I'm not advocating shunning the internet.  The information is there, we best use it.  I'm simply saying, don't forget, in all the noise of the typeface coming through your computer screen, to listen to yourself, and, more importantly, to listen to your child.